Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 26-Jun-17 World View -- Hezbollah's Nasrallah makes delusional speech about 'foreign fighters' attacking Israel

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Hezbollah's Nasrallah makes delusional speech about 'foreign fighters' attacking Israel
  
• Saudis report close relationships between Hezbollah and Qatar
  
• How to do a generational analysis of the Mideast
  

****
**** Hezbollah's Nasrallah makes delusional speech about 'foreign fighters' attacking Israel
****


Undated image of meeting between Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and a Qatari official (al-Arabiya)

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iran's puppet terror
organization, the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, said in a televised
speech on Friday:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The Israeli enemy should know that if it launches an
> attack on Syria or Lebanon, it’s unknown whether the fighting will
> stay just between Lebanon and Israel, or Syria and Israel.
>
> I’m not saying countries would intervene directly — but it would
> open the door for hundreds of thousands of fighters from all
> around the Arab and Islamic world to participate in this fight —
> from Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Although Nasrallah's speech was nominally about liberating Jerusalem
from Israel, it was clear from many of his remarks that it was really
about Saudi Arabia and other Sunni countries. He accused the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia of funding the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or
ISIL or Daesh), and he accused Turkey of facilitating its operations.

Nasrallah was also harshly critical of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and the
fight against Iran-backed Shia Houthis:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Despite all challenges of airstrikes, blockade,
> cholera, poverty and destruction, tens of thousands took to
> streets to voice solidarity with Palestine and Al-Quds
> [Jerusalem].
>
> Yemen proved that it will never be part of a scheme to sell
> Palestine, neither for a throne, nor for Trump and it is still
> fighting."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Nasrallah further made clear that he was talking about Shia fighters
from Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, when he referred to
Saudi Arabia and said "Al-Quds [Jerusalem] is too sacred to be
liberated by traitors and hypocrites."

Nasrallah also referred to Imam Moussa al-Sadr, a highly revered Shia
cleric, the leader of Lebanon's Shia Muslims, who said, "The honor of
Al-Quds [Jerusalem] refuses to accept any liberation unless it is at
the hands of true believers." Al-Sadr vanished in 1978 during a visit
to Libya, and his disappearance has been a continuing mystery.

So analysts are interpreting Nasrallah's remarks as saying that an
alliance of tens or hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims from Iraq,
Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, will
spontaneously come to Lebanon to join Hezbollah in a war against
Israel. This is about as delusional as you can get.

Supposedly, Nasrallah is thinking for example of the Shia Hazara
ethnic group in Pakistan, some of whose fighters came to Syria to
defend Syria's president Bashar al-Assad from the Sunni militias he
was fighting. However, those were mercenaries, paid by Iran, with no
personal interest in fighting either for or against al-Assad. In a
general Mideast war, the Hazaras would have their hands full fighting
the Taliban, and would not be rushing off the Lebanon to fight Israel.

So Nasrallah's speech, which seemed to be threatening Israel with
hundreds of thousands of fighters from Islamic countries near and far,
was actually an extremely bitter and vitriolic sectarian speech on the
Sunni - Shia fault line, and the Saudi Arabia - Iran fault line.

This is not to suggest that there isn't a war coming between Hezbollah
and Israel. There certainly is a war coming, and it will probably
kill millions of Israelis and Palestinians, and leave the region
soaked in blood. What I'm focusing on here is Nasrallah's boast about
hundreds of thousands of Islamic fighters.

The last war between the two occurred in 2006, and was a disaster for
both sides, killing a lot of people, destroying Lebanon's
infrastructure, but accomplishing absolutely nothing for either side.

Nasrallah's remarks about hundreds of thousands of Islamic fighters
was an allusion to the 2006 war, sending Israel a threat that the next
war will be a lot worse for Israel than the last one.

Major Gen. Amir Eshel, the head of Israel's air force, specifically
referred to the 2006 war last week when he said that Israel would have
"unimaginable" military power in hand in any future conflict with
Hezbollah:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"What the air force was able to do quantitatively in
> the [2006] Lebanon war over the course of 34 days we can do today
> in 48-60 hours.
>
> This is potential power unimaginable in its scope, much different
> to what we have seen in the past and far greater than people
> estimate."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Al Manar (Lebanon-Hezbollah) and Reuters and TeleSur TV (Caracas) and Times of Israel

Related Articles

• Lebanon's Hezbollah leads the fight in Syria battle (26-May-2013)
  
  
• Hezbollah building tunnels into Israel to prepare for next war (04-Jun-2016)
  
  
• Israel preparing for 'very violent' war with Hezbollah (07-Sep-2014)
  

****
**** Saudis report close relationships between Hezbollah and Qatar
****

The second of the 13 demands that Saudi Arabia is making of Qatar is
to "Sever all ties to “terrorist organizations,” specifically the
Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, al-Qaida, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Formally
declare those entities as terrorist groups."

Hezbollah is a puppet organization of Iran, which is a bitter enemy of
Saudi Arabia. The two countries no longer have diplomatic relations,
after protesters in Tehran burned down the Saudi embassy
in January of last year. So Saudi Arabia is
undoubtedly quite serious in demanding that Qatar end its relations
with Hezbollah as a condition for ending the land, sea and air
blockade that Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt and
Bahrain imposed on Qatar earlier this month.

A Saudi analysis claims that Qatar and Hezbollah have had very close
relations with Hezbollah at least since 2008, when there was an
agreement that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would become a regional axis
with Qatar's participation. When Syria's civil war began in 2011, and
Bashar al-Assad began massacring peaceful anti-government Sunni
protestors, including hundreds of innocent women and children in
Palestinian refugee camps, there was a rift between Qatar and
Hezbollah, according to the report. But that rift was healed, and by
November 2013, Hezbollah and Qatar met, and Qatar promised generous
funding for Bashar al-Assad, who was facing huge financial
difficulties.

Now there are new reports that Hezbollah fighters are joining Iranian
Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Turkish forces in Qatar to
protect Qatar's royal family. According to one Saudi analyst, "Qatar
is playing with fire. It’s acting as an organization and not as a
state." Al Arabiya (Riyadh) and Breitbart Jerusalem

Related Articles

• Saudi Arabia, UAE leak 13 demands to end Qatar crisis (25-Jun-2017)
  
  
• Qatar-Arab crisis is unlikely to be resolved soon (13-Jun-2017)
  
  
• Gulf Arab states have major split over Egypt and Iran (06-Mar-2014)
  
  
• Egypt inflames tensions with Qatar with al-Jazeera reporter verdicts (30-Aug-2015)
  

****
**** How to do a generational analysis of the Mideast
****

As regular readers know, Generational Dynamics predicts that the
Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Sunnis versus
Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and various ethnic groups against each
other. Generational Dynamics predicts that in the approaching Clash
of Civilizations world war, the "axis" of China, Pakistan and the
Sunni Muslim countries will be pitted against the "allies," the US,
India, Russia and Iran.

With the large number of ethnic groups and religious splinter groups
in the Mideast, it's not easy to predict exactly who will be fighting
whom in the approaching Mideast regional war. This question can be
answered with appropriate generational research and analysis. As I've
previously said, I certainly don't have anything like the resources to
perform such an analysis by myself, but any college student interested
in this kind of analysis could make an invaluable contribution to
understanding what's going on in the world today by taking on, as a
thesis topic, a generational analysis of the tribes and ethnic groups
in the Mideast.

A couple of people have asked me how such an analysis would be done,
and have asked me to provide additional information.

Generational analyses of historical events -- wars, political
upheavals, coups, etc. -- all work pretty much the same way.

I always recommend finding 15-20 sources describing the event from
different points of view. These days, the wealth of historical
information on the internet has made this much easier.

Some of the 15-20 sources should be written around the time that the
event took place, so that the analysis will be less influenced by
ideological filters of historians who describe it later. Google Books
has turned out to be a really valuable resource, because many of the
historical texts you're looking for are available, and are out of
copyright, so you can read them without paying for them.

Just to take a couple of examples, I was doing an analysis of the
American civil war, and I found several books that were written in the
early 1860s, just as the war was beginning. These kinds of sources
are extremely valuable in understanding what was going on at the time.
In fact, for doing a generational analysis, these kinds of sources are
actually more valuable than histories written much later, since the
best generational analyses convey the precise thoughts and behaviors
of the people of the time -- their nationalism, their xenophobia,
their statements, their actions.

As another example, last year I decided that I might write a book on
the history Islam in India, from the 600s in the Mideast through the
middle ages in India, to the present. I spent a couple of months
collecting, reading, and summarizing a lot of stuff, including about a
few dozen full length books and documents in English dating back to
the 1800s, all the way back to the 600s. Alas, other things came up,
and I had to drop the book-writing project. But the more I got into
it, the more fascinating it became, and perhaps someday I'll get back
to it, if I live long enough.

So when you're doing a generational analysis, it's necessary to
collect as many sources as possible, with older sources closer to the
event being more valuable than recent sources.

Once you read all the sources related to the event, then you have to
figure out what was going on. Was the event a crisis war with a
genocidal climax? Or was it an Awakening era confrontation, around 20
years after the climax of the last crisis war, characterized by a
"generation gap" and large student riots and demonstrations? Or was
it a "velvet coup," an Awakening era climax?

Once you've done that analysis for one event, you have do the same
thing for other events for the same society, tribe or nation, in order
to develop a generational timeline lasting for as many generations as
possible.

Any event has to be analyzed from the point of view of each
participant. It's not unusual to read two accounts of the same war by
opposing sides, and get the impression that they're talking about two
different wars. The same principle is true of major political events,
such as bloody riots or coups.

Now, in the case of the Mideast, this job would have to be done for
each of the tribes in the Mideast. This would be a lot of work
anyway, but the problem is compounded by the fact that a lot of the
historical information is only available in such languages are Arabic,
Farsi or Urdu. That's why I said that I don't have the resources to
do this job, and that it would require having something like a college
department back them up.

The current situation between Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar is an
example. About half an hour ago I saw a "Mideast expert" on
television, and he was asked how the Qatar blockade was going to end.
He answered that "Saudi Arabia is going to have egg on its face."
This is what we get from these "experts." These Washington experts
are complete idiots, as I've been seeing for many years now.

Still, I don't have an answer to the question of what the core issues
are in the Saudi-Qatar split. Every analysis I've read is extremely
shallow, usually no deeper than the "egg on its face" explanation, or
something fatuous about Trump. I like to joke that, for these people,
history always begins this morning.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, it's clear that it's
going to be necessary to analyze generational timelines for all the
ethnic and religious groups in the region going back at least two
centuries, and possibly farther. Perhaps some college department can
take this on as a thesis topic, because I don't have the resources to
answer this question. I'll be happy to help if anyone is interested.

I've done a little work in analyzing Mideast generational timelines,
but I've barely scratched the surface. Below is a list of articles
that I've written in the past that contain brief generational analyses
of the Sunni-Shia issue.

Related Articles

• Saudi Arabia's Grand Mosque, site of huge construction accident, has links to 9/11 (12-Sep-2015)
  
  
• After Hajj stampede disaster, Muslims debate the 'Will of Allah' (27-Sep-2015)
  
  
• Mideast trends: Sunni-Shia countries align along predicted lines (16-Jan-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah, Lebanon,
Iran, Israel, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, Houthis,
Al-Quds, Jerusalem, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, UAE,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Imam Moussa al-Sadr, Amir Eshel, Qatar

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Warren Dew]

Maybe by emphasizing "foreign fighters", Nasrallah means Iran will arm and supply them.

[Mikebert]

Hi John,

I have a question for you since you follow this stuff.  Why do American administrations of both parties seem to see Saudi Arabia and the Sunnis as allies while Iran and the Shia are enemies?  I know that Iran did the hostage crisis, but Saudi Arabia did the oil embargo, which I see as just as bad.  And I know that the Iranian-supported Shiite group Hezbollah killed 241 Americans in Lebanon in 1983, but the Saudi-supported Sunni group al Qaeda killed 2996 Americans on 911.  Since the 1980's Shiite groups have not targeted Americans AFAIK, while Sunni groups (e.g. ISIS and affiliates) continue to kill Americans and other Westerners.  So why are we siding with the Sunnis?  Why not do what Reagan did and play them off against each other?

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 27-Jun-17 World View -- Egypt's president al-Sisi hands contested Red Sea islands over to Saudi Arabia

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Egypt's president al-Sisi hands contested Red Sea islands over to Saudi Arabia
  
• US troops in Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) not affected by island handover
  

****
**** Egypt's president al-Sisi hands contested Red Sea islands over to Saudi Arabia
****


Dozens of Egyptian lawyers shout slogans during a protest in front of the Lawyers' Syndicate in Cairo against the agreement to hand over Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. (AP)

Egypt's president Abdel al-Fattah al-Sisi on Saturday ratified an
extremely controversial deal that hands over the two strategically
important Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. The
islands are at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, where they oversee the
passage of ships carrying goods between the Red Sea and four countries
-- Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The plans to hand over the islands were part of an April 2016
announcement that the two countries would build a land bridge connected Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
10-20 miles (16-32 km) long, right at the location where the
prophet Moses is said to have parted the Red Sea, in order to bring
his people out of slavery into the Promised Land. It would be called
the King Salman Bridge, named after Saudi Arabia's leader, Salman bin
Abdulaziz al-Saud.

That announcement triggered massive protests
in Egypt, with opponents claiming that Egypt was
forfeiting the country's territory and sovereignty in exchange for
bribery and extortion by Saudi Arabia -- a threat to cut off fuel
subsidies, and the promise of $22 billion in development projects in
Egypt to help its ailing economy.

Opponents of the handover claim that the Tiran and Sanafir islands
were granted to Egypt in 1906 in an agreement to draw up formal
boundaries between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. Supporters of the
deal claim that they've always belonged to Saudi Arabia, but they were
placed under the administration of Egypt in 1949 in the wake of
Arab-Israeli tensions, following the creation of the state of Israel.

The main emotional attachment that Egyptians have to the islands
follows from the fact that many Egyptians died defending the islands
during two wars with Israel, one in 1957 and one in 1967. Israel
captured the two islands in the 1967 Six-Day war, but they were
returned to Egypt under the 1979 Camp David accords.

The validity of the handover has been extremely contentious in Egypt's
court system. In January 2017, Egypt’s High Administrative Court
voided the deal handing over the islands. Then, in April, the Cairo
Court for Urgent Matters OKed the deal, after ruling that the High
Administrative Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. On June 14,
Egypt's parliament approved the deal. Egypt's Constitutional Court
has yet to rule on the matter, and may still nullify the deal.

A major deal such as this one would normally call for lavish
ceremonies, but a decision has been made to have no ceremonies
whatsoever, for fear of triggering further protests. Al-Ahram (Cairo) and France 24 and Egypt Independent

Related Articles

• Egypt-Saudi deal for Red Sea bridge triggers massive protests in Cairo (16-Apr-2016)
  
  
• Largest protests in years planned for Cairo Egypt on Monday (25-Apr-2016)
  
  
• Egypt, Saudi Arabia to build a huge bridge where Moses parted the Red Sea (10-Apr-2016)
  

****
**** US troops in Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) not affected by island handover
****


Map showing the Red Sea, Strait of Tiran, and Gulf of Aqaba

The Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) is a little-known
international peacekeeping force from 11 different countries including
the United States, Fiji, Colombia, Uruguay, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Norway, France, Italy, and others. The MFO is located in
Egypt's Sinai desert, in two camps. The South Camp is located on the
southern tip of the Sinai directly on the Red Sea, where it oversees
the islands of Tiran and Sanafir, and guarantees unimpeded freedom of
navigation and overflight through the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of
Aqaba.

The MFO was originally conceived at the United Nations following the
Camp David Accords. The MFO was proposed in the Security Council,
where it was vetoed by China and Russia. As a result, the US, Egypt
and Israel agreed to set up the MFO as an independent deal outside the
UN framework.

The MFO has 1,667 military personnel supplied by twelve countries and
17 civilian officials. The US contributes nearly 700 personnel to the
MFO, and also pays nearly a third of the organization’s $86 million
annual budget.

The original purpose of the MFO was to guarantee peaceful relations
between Egypt and Israel. It would seem to have outlived its
usefulness, since relations between Egypt and Israel have never been
better. However, when President George Bush wanted to scale back the
MFO in 2003 in order to save money, both Egypt and Israel joined
together to urge the US to reconsider. As a result, there is little
or no desire on anyone's part to eliminate or scale back the MFO, and
the Tiran and Sanafir island handover should have no effect.

It's considered to be the most successful peacekeeping operations in
recent history, and it's expected to continue. The Multinational Force & Observers (MFO) web site and Global Security
and Politico (1-Nov-2015)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sinai, Israel,
Tiran, Sanafir, Gulf of Aqaba, Strait of Tiran, Red Sea, Moses,
Abdel al-Fattah al-Sisi, Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,
Camp David accords, Multinational Force and Observers, MFO

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[John J. Xenakis]

(06-26-2017, 08:57 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Maybe by emphasizing "foreign fighters", Nasrallah means Iran will
> arm and supply them.

If that's true, it would be part of Nasrallah's delusion.

The Iranian people -- and by this I mean the Prophet and Nomad
generations that have grown up since the 1979 revolution and the
subsequent Iran/Iraq war -- are willing to support Iran's intervention
in Syria because of the huge strategic importance of Bashar al-Assad.

Here's something that I wrote earlier this year:

Quote:> But Iran is adamant that al-Assad must stay, and cannot even be
> replaced by someone with similar policies. According to one
> analysis, the cause springs from the fact that Iran is quite
> isolated in the region, as the only Shia Muslim state, but
> surrounded by Sunni Muslim and Christian states. Thus, Iran is
> forced to rely on non-state alliances -- the Houthis in Yemen,
> Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the
> Badr Organization in Iraq, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and Shia/Alawite
> Bashar al-Assad in Syria -- forming the "Shia Crescent."
> According to this analysis, if Iran is not completely loyal to
> al-Assad, then all the other non-state groups in its coalition
> will receive a signal that they're expendable as well, which would
> destabilize the entire coalition. Instead, Iran sees that it must
> remain completely loyal to al-Assad, and Hezbollah militias must
> remain in Syria to protect Iran's interests there -- including
> from the Turks and the Russians.

** 13-Feb-17 World View -- After Syria's so-called ceasefire, tensions grow over the future of Bashar al-Assad
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e170213

However, there's no such strategic advantage to a war with Israel.
That's one of the many bizarre things about the current situation. If
Israel were suddenly to disappear from the face of the earth, it would
be a disaster for the Iran hardliners' policy, since they need Israel
as a foil to gain influence among the Palestinians, who otherwise
would join Saudi Arabia in viewing Iran as nothing more than an
existential threat.

Incidentally, this is based on success of the Iranian hostage crisis
that began in 1979 and continued for years. The hostage crisis was a
huge success for Khomeini's government because it united the entire
country behind him. Today, Iran is in an Awakening era, and Khamenei
is completely baffled by the fact that he doesn't have the same kind
of populist support that his predecessor had. So he uses threats
against Israel, the US and West hoping to regenerate unity in the same
way that the hostage crisis did in 1979, but of course that has no
chance of working today.

[John J. Xenakis]

Dear Mike,

(06-26-2017, 07:57 PM)Mikebert Wrote: > I have a question for you since you follow this stuff. Why do
> American administrations of both parties seem to see Saudi Arabia
> and the Sunnis as allies while Iran and the Shia are enemies? I
> know that Iran did the hostage crisis, but Saudi Arabia did the
> oil embargo, which I see as just as bad. And I know that the
> Iranian-supported Shiite group Hezbollah killed 241 Americans in
> Lebanon in 1983, but the Saudi-supported Sunni group al Qaeda
> killed 2996 Americans on 911. Since the 1980's Shiite groups have
> not targeted Americans AFAIK, while Sunni groups (e.g. ISIS and
> affiliates) continue to kill Americans and other Westerners. So
> why are we siding with the Sunnis? Why not do what Reagan did and
> play them off against each other?

Well, one thing to remember is that few Americans, have any clue
what "Sunni vs Shia" means. Prior to 9/11, almost no one had even
heard of the two sects. In 2006, I wrote an article quoting
the Congressional Quarterly and the London Times that the
so-called "Mideast experts" couldn't even answer a simple question,
like whether al-Qaeda was a Sunni or Shia organization.


** Guess what? British politicians and journalists are just as ignorant as Americans
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...m#e070114b


So American foreign policy is not based on anything so strategic
as you suggest, but rather on bilateral relations with individual
countries.

So let's start with Iran. The Shah of Iran was one of America's
closest allies in the Mideast. Then, in 1979, he was gone, and we had
the Iranian hostage crisis that lasted for years. And we've had for
decades a hardline government that repeatedly insults and threatens
the US and the West, and does so pretty much every day. America is
simply not going to have good relations with a country that behaves in
that way.

Next, Saudi Arabia. Since the 1930s, America and Saudi Arabia have
had a very specific core understanding: That Saudi Arabia will
guarantee to supply all the oil that America and the West need, and,
in return, America and the West must guarantee the security of
Saudi Arabia.

The exact details of the US-Saudi relationship have had to change from
time to time, based on international events such as Iran's revolution,
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Iraq war, the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, Syria's civil war, the
rise of ISIS.

While the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis and subsequent Iranian behavior
drove a wedge between the US and Iran, the 1973 oil embargo, which
came out of Israel's war with Egypt, did the opposite -- it cemented
the US-Saudi relationship.

The core has always remained the same: The Saudis will guarantee oil,
the Americans will guarantee security. For Americans, this has
absolutely nothing to do with Sunni vs Shia fault line, which
Washington doesn't understand anyway, although, ironically, the
Shia-Sunni fault line is EVERYTHING to the two countries discussed
here, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[John J. Xenakis]

(06-26-2017, 08:39 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: > I still cannot see a path to us allying with the Kremlin. Unless
> we become their client state. Sadly there are many traitors still
> running free, who want to do just that. So called Russophiles. I
> call them vermin.

Keep in mind that you would have said exactly the same thing in 1940,
and yet the US did ally with Kremlin without becoming their client
state (not sure what that means).

The other thing to remember is that the Russian and Chinese people
hate each other. Any alliance between Russia and China is "honor
among thieves." Today, they're both breaking international law by
doing what Hitler did -- invading and annexing regions belonging to
other countries.

When India goes to war with Pakistan and China, Russia will most
defintely not be on the side of China. They will be on the side of
India, as will the United States. That's one of the likely paths to
us allying with the Kremlin.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 28-Jun-17 World View -- As Narendra Modi visits Washington, China threatens India after border clash

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• China threatens India over military border clash in Sikkim state
  
• Trump, meeting Modi in Washington, approves sale of 22 drones to India
  

****
**** China threatens India over military border clash in Sikkim state
****


Narendra Modi and Donald Trump hugging during their meeting (AP)

Decades of disputes on the Himalayan border between China's Sikkim
state and China's Tibet province were renewed this month in more than
ten days of confrontations between Chinese and Indian troops.

The confrontation began early in June. China accuses India of sending
border guards to cross into what China calls its "sovereign territory"
in Sikkim, and said that the guards had "obstructed normal activities"
by Chinese forces building roads connecting coal mines.

An article titled "Indian troops’ provocation brings disgrace to
themselves" in China's state media Global Times makes a number of
vitriolic accusations and threats directed at India:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Chinese and Indian soldiers are locked in a face-off
> at the Sikkim section of the China-India border after Indian
> troops crossed the boundary and entered Chinese territory. ...
>
> It remains unclear whether this flare-up is the fault of low-level
> Indian troops or a tentative strategic move made by the Indian
> government. Whatever the motive, China must stick to its bottom
> line. It must force the Indian troops to retreat to the Indian
> side by all means necessary, and China's road construction mustn't
> be stopped.
>
> India's national confidence has been greatly boosted with its GDP
> rising to fifth in the world. The fact that the US and West are
> willing to woo India to counterbalance China has particularly
> added to Indians' sense of strategic superiority.
>
> Some Indians believe the US and Japan are building a circle to
> contain China, and India has an advantage over China by choosing
> whether to join this circle. Therefore, they can indulge
> themselves on issues including border disputes, while China has no
> choice but to make concessions. ...
>
> China avoids making an issue of border disputes, which has
> indulged India's unruly provocations. This time the Indian side
> needs to be taught the rules.
>
> India cannot afford a showdown with China on border issues. It
> lags far behind China in terms of national strength and the
> so-called strategic support for it from the US is
> superficial. China has no desire to confront India. Maintaining
> friendly ties with New Delhi is Beijing's basic policy. But this
> must be based on mutual respect. It's not time for India to
> display arrogance toward China. India's GDP is only one-quarter of
> China's and its annual defense budget is just one-third. Having a
> friendly relationship and cautiously handling border issues with
> China is its best choice."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

In retaliation, China has blocked the entry of 400 Indians making an
annual pilgrimage to a holy site in Tibet.

Following a policy of downplaying border conflicts, India has been
relatively silent about this month's confrontation. An Indian media
story entitled "India pushes back Chinese Army in Sikkim" says:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"A standoff running into more than 10 days now between
> Indian and Chinese troops has led to tension on the eastern
> frontier. There was also a scuffle as Indian troops pushed back
> their Chinese counterparts who made attempts to enter Indian
> territory at Doka La general area in Sikkim.
>
> Sources said the confrontation began about two weeks ago but a
> flag meeting was called on June 20 after two earlier attempts
> failed.
>
> "The situation is still tense," said a government official.
>
> There are reports of two Indian bunkers also being damaged.
>
> Indian soldiers formed a human chain to stop the Chinese troops,
> sources said."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

There is an ill-defined border some 4,000 km (2,500 miles) between
China and India, of which 220 km fall in Sikkim. There was a major
border war in 1962, and there have numerous minor clashes and
incursions since then, although nothing has been settled.

The destruction of two Indian bunkers is a Chinese military response
to India's continuing buildup of its military infrastructure in the
Himalayas, and the apparent planning of an effective counter-thrust in
the event of a conflict.

Analysts say that China has exhibited greater aggressiveness along the
border since April of this year, when the Dalai Lama visited
a region of northeast India claimed by
China. Global Times (Beijing) and DNA India (New Delhi)

Related Articles

• Dalai Lama to visit region of northeast India claimed by China (03-Apr-2017)
  
  
• China punishes Mongolia for Dalai Lama visit during financial crisis (29-Dec-2016)
  
  
• China tests new long-range missile in Tibet, near India border (01-Aug-2012)
  
  
• 3-Feb-10 News - China objects to Obama's meeting with Dalai Lama (03-Feb-2010)
  

****
**** Trump, meeting Modi in Washington, approves sale of 22 drones to India
****

Some analysts believe that China provoked the military confrontation
in Sikkim because of the planned Tuesday meeting of India's prime
minister Narendra Modi with president Donald Trump in Washington, and
because news stories had signaled greater military cooperation between
India and the US, as well as seeing China as a common challenge.

The major military outcome of the meeting was the Trump
administration's approval of the sale of 22 Guardian maritime drones
to India, worth about $2 billion. India had requested to buy the
drones late last year, but president Barack Obama left the decision to
the new administration. The drones will be unarmed, and will be used
for gathering intelligence over the India Ocean.

It's against American policy to sell an armed drone to a non-Nato
country, India has indicated that it may purchase armed drones from
Israel.

The joint statement following the meeting between Modi and Trump did
not mention China by name, but set out principles that are "central to
peace and stability" in the Indo-Pacific region. These principles
were clearly directed at China, with additional text specifically
directed at North Korea:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"In accordance with the tenets outlined in the U.N.
> Charter, they committed to a set of common principles for the
> region, according to which sovereignty and international law are
> respected and every country can prosper. To this end, the leaders:
>
>

• reiterate the importance of respecting freedom of
  > navigation, overflight, and commerce throughout the region;
  >
  >
• call upon all nations to resolve territorial and maritime
  > disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law;
  >
  >
• support bolstering regional economic connectivity through the
  > transparent development of infrastructure and the use of
  > responsible debt financing practices, while ensuring respect for
  > sovereignty and territorial integrity, the rule of law, and the
  > environment; and
  >
  >
• call on other nations in the region to adhere to these
  > principles. ...

>
> The leaders strongly condemned continued provocations by the
> Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), emphasizing that its
> destabilizing pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile programs
> poses a grave threat to regional security and global peace. The
> leaders called on DPRK to strictly abide by its international
> obligations and commitments. The leaders pledged to work together
> to counter the DPRK’s weapons of mass destruction programs,
> including by holding accountable all parties that support these
> programs."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The items listed above allude to China's invasion and annexation of
the South China, which is a violation of international law, and calls
for freedom of navigation throughout the region.

The third item in the list alludes to China's "One Belt One Road"
(OBOR) project. India has rejected the OBOR project, saying that the
massive infrastructure projects violate India's sovereignty in
Kashmir. The appearance of this item in the joint statement indicates
that the Trump administration agrees with India's objections to the
OBOR project.

Needless to say, these statements have infuriated China. According to
China state media, if the US "cozies up" to India, it could lead to
"catastrophic results," which presumably means a war between India and
China:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Washington's pursuit of closer ties with New Delhi is
> mainly driven by its strategic need to utilize India as a tool to
> counterbalance China. ...
>
> Washington and New Delhi share anxieties about China's rise. In
> recent years, to ratchet up geopolitical pressure on China, the US
> has cozied up to India. But India is not a US ally like Japan or
> Australia. To assume a role as an outpost country in the US'
> strategy to contain China is not in line with India's
> interests. It could even lead to catastrophic results. If India
> regresses from its non-alignment stance and becomes a pawn for the
> US in countering China, it will be caught up in a strategic
> dilemma and new geopolitical frictions will be triggered in South
> Asia.
>
> In an era when emerging countries have been playing an
> increasingly important role in global affairs, if India, an
> important participant in two non-Western organizations - the
> Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS - can firmly stand
> together with China in striving for more discourse power, it will
> be helpful for New Delhi to realize its big power ambitions.
>
> From the end of the 1950s to the beginning of the 1960s, both the
> Soviet Union and the US wanted to play the India card to check
> China. Then the Kennedy government supported India's Forward
> Policy. But the result wasn't what was expected. India isn't able
> to balance China, which has been proved by history. New Delhi
> should avoid being roped into a geopolitical trap. Despite its
> anxieties over China's rise, maintaining a stable relationship
> with China is of more importance to its security and
> development."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The sale of drones to India, and the apparent China "containment"
policy of India and the US, are going on at the same time as a
flare-up of border clashes in Sikkim. This is a good time to recall
that there's another border dispute that's becoming critical: The
increasing violence between separatist insurgents and Indian security
forces in Kashmir. These are , are all signs of significantly
worsening tensions between India and China. Defense News and Live Mint (India) and Sputnik News (Moscow) and Global Times (Beijing)

Related Articles

• India's 'Operation All-Out' brings Kashmir closer to all-out war (24-Jun-2017)
  
  
• India and Singapore launch major naval exercises in South China Sea (25-May-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, India, Narendra Modi, Himalayas,
Sikkim state, China, Tibet province, Guardian drones,
North Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Mikebert]

(06-27-2017, 06:27 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ...the 1973 oil embargo, which came out of Israel's war with Egypt, did the opposite -- it cemented the US-Saudi relationship.

This is an observation of the fact of US kissing Saudi ass.  Not addressed is Why?  Why is the embargo a forgivable offense?  Why is 911 a forgivable offense? Today Saudi oil is bad for the US since it suppresses US production. So oil doesn't make any sense.

Your model was my operating assumption in 2003 when the Iraq war began, which I initially supported.  I thought the war was about cleaning up loose ends from the Gulf War, which was openly about oil, making the second Iraq war indirectly about oil (I always saw the WMD think as a mere pretext).  

And for a while it looked like I was right, we invaded with a force large enough to decapitate the regime (remember the deck of cards) but not occupy the country. We sent Garner in to talk to Iraqi generals with an eye to replacing Saddam with a new strongman.  We ended the embargo and began the withdrawal of troops form Saudi Arabia (two of the pretexts AQ gave for 911).  Presumably we would have the new guy make deals with US oil companies, maybe pay them an indemnity, and leave.  And then, all of a sudden, Garner was out and Bremer came in and proceeded to ban the Baathists and dismantle the army.  I immediately turned against the war.

The fact of Bremer means the war was NOT about oil and NOT about restoring the pre-1990 status quo.  Apparently Bush was serious about building Democracy in the Middle East, which I had assumed was pure bullshit.

And so we come to the current support for the Saudis and the fact of what we did in Iraq. These two things are completely incompatible with each other. Both were done by Republicans.  Are they now schizophrenic?  I've washed my hands, I'm practically an isolationist now.

Do you have a way to square Saudi support = OIL with Iraq invasion <> OIL?

[Warren Dew]

(06-28-2017, 06:50 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-27-2017, 06:27 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ...the 1973 oil embargo, which came out of Israel's war with Egypt, did the opposite -- it cemented the US-Saudi relationship.

This is an observation of the fact of US kissing Saudi ass.  Not addressed is Why?  Why is the embargo a forgivable offense?  Why is 911 a forgivable offense? Today Saudi oil is bad for the US since it suppresses US production. So oil doesn't make any sense.

Your model was my operating assumption in 2003 when the Iraq war began, which I initially supported.  I thought the war was about cleaning up loose ends from the Gulf War, which was openly about oil, making the second Iraq war indirectly about oil (I always saw the WMD think as a mere pretext).  

And for a while it looked like I was right, we invaded with a force large enough to decapitate the regime (remember the deck of cards) but not occupy the country. We sent Garner in to talk to Iraqi generals with an eye to replacing Saddam with a new strongman.  We ended the embargo and began the withdrawal of troops form Saudi Arabia (two of the pretexts AQ gave for 911).  Presumably we would have the new guy make deals with US oil companies, maybe pay them an indemnity, and leave.  And then, all of a sudden, Garner was out and Bremer came in and proceeded to ban the Baathists and dismantle the army.  I immediately turned against the war.

The fact of Bremer means the war was NOT about oil and NOT about restoring the pre-1990 status quo.  Apparently Bush was serious about building Democracy in the Middle East, which I had assumed was pure bullshit.

And so we come to the current support for the Saudis and the fact of what we did in Iraq. These two things are completely incompatible with each other. Both were done by Republicans.  Are they now schizophrenic?  I've washed my hands, I'm practically an isolationist now.

Do you have a way to square Saudi support = OIL with Iraq invasion <> OIL?

The Iraq invasion not being about oil doesn't mean it wasn't about unfinished business.  One of the views of the Gulf War was that we should have enforced the no fly zone in the south to prevent Saddam Hussein from putting down a popular rebellion there.  The fantasy was that the popular rebellion would have led naturally to an enlightened, democratic government.

Once the situation in Iraq proved that, far from being willing to support en enlightened, democratic government through individual sacrifice and force of arms, the population of Iraq didn't really even understand what a democratic government was all about, more sensible Republicans than George W. Bush realized that trying to spread democracy in the Middle East was a stupid idea.

[Warren Dew]

(06-27-2017, 06:24 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Today, Iran is in an Awakening era

This is what I was missing.  Thanks.

[John J. Xenakis]

First off, the entire neocon strategy of democracy through invasion
was always fanatical insanity. I said that many times during the Iraq
war years. Here's where I included it in a list of moronic policies
that were accepted as conventional wisdom:

** This week's idiot of the week: Robert Reich
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e070212

So I agree with you that the neocon strategy was total idiocy, and may
have been believed by Bush.

I really don't want to debate the Iraq war again, except to summarize:
The war occurred exactly 58 years after the Hiroshima explosion, a
time when the population was highly prone to panic over WMDs. Pretty
much everyone in the world believed that Iraq was developing WMDs,
including Iran. In October 2003, Iran's Khamenei issued his fatwa
against developing a nuclear weapon, thus preventing a Mideast nuclear
arms race, something that would have happened if it hadn't been for
the Iraq war proving that Iraq had no WMDs. For more details, see the
following:

** The Iraq war may be related to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e080217

So in my opinion there is no relationship whatsoever between the
policies in oil embargo and the Iraq war. In fact, I'll go farther to
say that politicians rarely follow any strategy, but only do what gets them money,
power and votes. The Iraq war was a form of generational panic
unrelated to any long-term strategy. And the reaction to the oil
embargo was simply that we needed the oil and the Saudis needed
security, and no other reaction was possible for either side.

As for becoming an isolationist, I can't disagree with that either,
except that I'm far more fatalistic than that. People always try to
find logical, political bases for wars, and you can always come up
with something. But I see wars as being similar to hurricanes and
earthquakes. They happen because they have to happen, and the causes
(el niño, tectonic plate slippage, generational changes) are never
political, and in fact politicians can neither cause nor prevent any
of these catastrophes. That's the way the world works, and you might
as well just lie back and enjoy it.

[Mikebert]

(06-28-2017, 09:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Iraq invasion not being about oil doesn't mean it wasn't about unfinished business.  One of the views of the Gulf War was that we should have enforced the no fly zone in the south to prevent Saddam Hussein from putting down a popular rebellion there.  The fantasy was that the popular rebellion would have led naturally to an enlightened, democratic government.

So you buy my conclusion that the Iraq war was about trying to spread democracy in the Middle East? I *know* you are my age. Did you vote for Bush in 2000?  Aren't you a Republican? If this spreading Democracy was not what you wanted from a Republican administration, did you then vote for Kerry in 2004 (who did run on ending the Iraq debacle) or Bush?  If Bush, why?

[Mikebert]

(06-28-2017, 09:59 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: First off, the entire neocon strategy of democracy through invasion
was always fanatical insanity.  

Was this supposed to be a response to my post?  It doesn't answer any of the questions.  John (and Warren) I do have a theory on what this is about, but I want you to tell me yours before I contaminate your thinking with mine.

Oh, great video, my favorite song from the film

[Ragnarök_62]

(06-28-2017, 02:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-28-2017, 09:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Iraq invasion not being about oil doesn't mean it wasn't about unfinished business.  One of the views of the Gulf War was that we should have enforced the no fly zone in the south to prevent Saddam Hussein from putting down a popular rebellion there.  The fantasy was that the popular rebellion would have led naturally to an enlightened, democratic government.

So you buy my conclusion that the Iraq war was about trying to spread democracy in the Middle East?

Mikebert Wrote:I *know* you are my age.

Close, but no cigar.  IIRC, Warren is a 1960 cohort.  However, I'm here to mess around with y'alls pea patches.
1962 is close enough, IMHO.

Quote: Did you vote for Bush in 2000?  Aren't you a Republican? If this spreading Democracy was not what you wanted from a Republican administration, did you then vote for Kerry in 2004 (who did run on ending the Iraq debacle) or Bush? 

Oh, but Mikebert, the MIC has a whole herd of swine to put lipstick on.   The stated policy [pig with lipstick] is that assorted military actions which seem senseless, make all the sense in the world when we get to brass tacks and realize and wizen up to look beyond the lip sticked pig and look at what the elites' wallow really has.  Simply, any military or I spy action in the Mideast must be to secure the oil supplies there and prop up the petro dollar. Qaddafi was on his way to circulating a gold dinar, so he had to go away. Same for Assad. Assad is a hostile power located where some nice oil pipelines would go.

So "spreading democracy" = a pig with lipstick. "Human rights" is one more, and "national interests are involved" is the closest of the 3 pigs with lipstick, but that pig is more real, for it's the only pig without wings.

Quote:If Bush, why?

Maybe Warren voted for the person with the prettiest pig.

One for old time sakes...

[John J. Xenakis]

(06-28-2017, 09:59 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > First off, the entire neocon strategy of democracy through
> invasion was always fanatical insanity.

(06-28-2017, 02:38 PM)Mikebert Wrote: > Was this supposed to be a response to my post? It doesn't answer
> any of the questions. John (and Warren) I do have a theory on
> what this is about, but I want you to tell me yours before I
> contaminate your thinking with mine.

Yes, it was intended to be a complete response, and a complete
explanation in terms of generational theory. I honestly have no idea
what I could add. If you have some specific question, ask it.

Or, better yet, contaminate my thinking by explaining your thinking.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 29-Jun-17 World View -- Thousands in cities across India protest lynchings of Muslims and Dalits by cow vigilantes

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Thousands in cities across India protest lynchings of Muslims and Dalits by cow vigilantes
  
• Concerns grow over communal violence between Hindus and Muslims
  

****
**** Thousands in cities across India protest lynchings of Muslims and Dalits by cow vigilantes
****


A protester in Hyderabad, India, on Wednesday holds up a sign saying 'Stop Lynching' (AP)

Thousands of Indians demonstrated in cities across India on Wednesday
against lynchings and attacks on men and boys by cow vigilantes. Cows
are held sacred in the Hindu religion. The protests took place in
Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai, Pune, Lucknow, and other
cities.

The slogan for the protests was "Not in my name," because some people
justified the lynchings in the name of the Hindu religion. Other
banners read "Stop Cow Terrorism," "stand up to Hindu terrorism" and
"say no to Brahminism." Some protesters referred to India as
"Lynchistan."

Last Friday, in a train on the outskirts of New Delhi, a mob of 20
people fatally stabbed 16-year-old Muslim Junaid Khan after an
argument over seats that turned into a lynching when the mob accused
him and three others of being "beef-eaters." Khan was thrown off the
train, where he bled to death.

Although the train was packed with commuters, witnesses have refused
to come forward. However, four people, including two employees of the
government of Delhi, have been identified and arrested as
perpetrators.

There have been five cow vigilante killings in the last three months,
almost all of them in broad daylight.

On April 1, Pehlu Khan, a Muslim cattle trader, was lynched by a mob
in the western state of Rajasthan as he transported cattle he had
bought at an animal fair back to his home state of Haryana. Khan and
his family were small dairy farmers.

In May, two Muslim men were beaten to death over allegations of cattle
theft in India's northeast.

However, Muslims are not the only ones being targeted by cow
vigilantes. There have also been lynchings of people in the
"untouchable" caste Dalit, many of whom have jobs related to cows,
such as disposing of dead cows. Four Dalits in Gujarat were brutally beaten
by cow vigilantes in August
of last year for allegedly killing a cow, which later investigation
revealed to have been killed by a lion.

Many Indians are pointing the finger at president Narendra Modi and
his ruling BJP party (Bharatiya Janata Party), which are strongly
supportive of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism). They point out that BJP
politicians are silent when a Muslim is lynched by cow vigilantes, but
they were outraged over the recent public slaughter of a calf by Youth
Congress activists in Kerala. They say that the silence of Modi and
the BJP are, in effect, inciting violence against Muslims and Dalits
by cow vigilantes. New Delhi TV and Daily Sabah (Turkey) and Al Jazeera (Doha) and Free Press Journal (India)

****
**** Concerns grow over communal violence between Hindus and Muslims
****

According to a study by the IndiaSpend organization, cow vigilante
attacks began in 2010, but have gotten much worse since Narendra Modi
and the ruling BJP party came to power in 2014.

According to the IndiaSpend report, since 2010 cow vigilantes targeted
Muslims 51% of the time. 86% of the Indians killed in 63 incidents
were Muslims. As many as 124 people were also injured in these
attacks. More than half (52%) of these attacks were based on
unsubstantiated rumors.

2017 has been the worst year so far over slaughtering of cattle or
possessing cattle meat, with 20 cow-terror attacks reported.

The targets were Muslim in 51% of the cases, Hindus of Dalit caste in
8% of the cases, 15% Hindu of undetermined caste, 5% Sikh, and 1.6%
Christian.

Hindu veneration of cows is an extremely emotional issue in India, and
has played an important part in India's last two generational crisis
wars. The bloody 1857 rebellion against British colonists was
triggered when Indian soldiers serving under the command of the
British army were ordered to use a new kind of gun cartridge greased
with tallow, which was allegedly made of beef and pork fat. Rumors
spread rapidly that the British defiling the bodies of the soldiers by
breaking their castes, which was the punishment for eating beef.

The next generational crisis war was the Partition war of 1947, which
followed the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent into India and
Pakistan. The debate over whether to create one or two countries was
settled by the argument that Hindus and Muslims can't live together
because Muslims can't stand pigs and Hindus can't eat cows.

The rise of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) and cow veneration in the
last few years, combined with the rapidly growing violence in Kashmir,
signals that the fault line between Hindus and Muslims in India is
growing again, and that the old passions that led to the bloody 1857
Rebellion and the even more bloody 1947 Partition war are reviving
again. DNA India and IndiaSpend and India Times and Washington Post

Related Articles

• India's Narendra Modi finally hits out at Cow Protectors ('Gau Rakshaks') (07-Aug-2016)
  
  
• Narendra Modi and rise of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) in India (24-Aug-2014)
  
  
• 'Hindutva' terrorist violence against Muslims shocks Indians (06-Nov-2008)
  
  
• As Narendra Modi visits Washington, China threatens India after border clash (28-Jun-2017)
  
  
• India declares nationwide prohibition on sales of cattle for slaughter (28-May-2017)
  
  
• India's 'Operation All-Out' brings Kashmir closer to all-out war (24-Jun-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, India, Narendra Modi, Hindutva, Cow vigilantes,
Junaid Khan, Pehlu Khan, Dalits, Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP,
IndiaSpend, Kashmir

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Warren Dew]

(06-28-2017, 02:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-28-2017, 09:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Iraq invasion not being about oil doesn't mean it wasn't about unfinished business.  One of the views of the Gulf War was that we should have enforced the no fly zone in the south to prevent Saddam Hussein from putting down a popular rebellion there.  The fantasy was that the popular rebellion would have led naturally to an enlightened, democratic government.

So you buy my conclusion that the Iraq war was about trying to spread democracy in the Middle East? I *know* you are my age. Did you vote for Bush in 2000?  Aren't you a Republican? If this spreading Democracy was not what you wanted from a Republican administration, did you then vote for Kerry in 2004 (who did run on ending the Iraq debacle) or Bush?  If Bush, why?

The Iraq war is not separable from the Gulf War; they were basically the first half and the second half of the same conflict and have to be viewed as a whole.  That said, the reasons for and against getting out of a war are not necessarily the opposite of the reasons for getting into the war; we get into Vietnam because we wanted to stop the spread of Communism, but the reason for getting out was not that we decided Communism was a good thing after all.

The really stupid war was the Gulf War; at the time Iraq was aligned with us and Kuwait mostly against us, so coming in on the side of Kuwait made no sense.  In addition, our intervention was bad, not good, from the standpoint of oil production.  I attribute that to GHWBush having fantasies of refighting WWII against dictators with moustaches.

The Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions against Iraq were a humanitarian disaster; the sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands of children every year, as well as, likely, a comparable number of adults.

Different people had different justifications for the Iraq war.  For me, ending the humanitarian disaster of the sanctions was the best one.  GWBush likely believed in the WMD justification, or a variant that held that Saddam Hussein would restart nuclear weapons development if sanctions were lifted, which doesn't seem to me unlikely.

The "democracy" justification was likely not the primary driver for many people for starting the Iraq War, but once the war started, it became the exit model.  And while I think that an enlightened democratic government happening naturally was never in the cards, I do think that up until the 2010 Iraqi elections, a less than enlightened democratic government heavily supported by US influence was possible.  It was only when the US allowed Al Awlaki to maintain control after losing an election that continued democratic government in Iraq became impossible, and we had to switch to an exit model that turned Iraq over to Iran as eventually happened.

I did vote for GWBush, though I wasn't a Republican at the time.  I didn't trust Gore to focus on environmentalism to the exclusion of the normal Democratic move towards bigger government and more socialism.  I didn't actually vote in 2004 due to a last minute business trip that didn't give me enough lead time to get an absentee ballot, but I would still have voted for Bush because (a) his economic policies were working well, and (b) the "US propping up democracy" Iraq exit model seemed better than just abandoning Iraq to Iran. In general I have tended to vote more on domestic policy than on foreign policy, although that is changing as the crisis war approaches.

[John J. Xenakis]

(06-29-2017, 12:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > The really stupid war was the Gulf War; at the time Iraq was
> aligned with us and Kuwait mostly against us, so coming in on the
> side of Kuwait made no sense. In addition, our intervention was
> bad, not good, from the standpoint of oil production. I attribute
> that to GHWBush having fantasies of refighting WWII against
> dictators with moustaches.

If memory serves, Bush didn't want to do the Gulf War at all, but
Margaret Thatcher flew in from London and talked him into it.

Also, don't forget to take into account that remarkable ultimatum
telling Saddam to pull his troops out of Kuwait by January 15 (as I
recall), or else.

In 1991, there were still a lot of people around (whole generations of
people) who believed (in fantasy) that if Hitler had been prevented
from annexing Czechoslovakia and Poland, then WW II could have been
avoided. That's the reason that the Gulf War had to happen. These
decisions to go to war are made for emotional reasons, not rational
reasons, and permitting Saddam to get away with annexing Kuwait was
abhorrent to Thatcher and the Brits, and so Bush was convinced. No
other outcome was possible.

Today, 25 years later, few people care that Russia annexed
Crimea and China annexed the South China Sea.

[John J. Xenakis]

The interesting thing about all this is that all the US wars
since WW II were rooted in WW II:

• The Korean and Vietnam wars were based on the need to stop
  communism before it caused WW III like the Nazis did.
  
  
• The Gulf War was caused by the Brits not wanting to be
  fooled by Saddam the way that Chamberlain was fooled by Hitler
  
  
• The Iraq War occurred exactly 58 years after Hiroshima, was caused
  by the need to prevent Saddam from getting WMDs (58 year
  hypothesis)

As I've said repeatedly over the years, it's a core principle of
Generational Dynamics that, even in a dictatorship, major decisions
are made by masses of people, by generations of people. The attitudes
of politicians are irrelevant, except insofar as they represent the
attitudes of the people. The reason that generational theory works is
that population generations are almost completely predictable,
irrespective of what politicians want.